F. Alibhai

The accused, Adam Luangphasi and Alexander Le, were tried on multiple counts including conspiracy to traffic, import, and produce cocaine, as well as participating in a criminal organization and possessing proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case relied heavily on intercepted communications, surveillance, and expert evidence decoding drug jargon.

Applying the Carter framework for co-conspirator hearsay, the court found both accused guilty of conspiracy to traffic cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine from Guyana.

Luangphasi was also found guilty of a separate conspiracy to import cocaine using a private plane.

Both accused were acquitted of the criminal organization charges due to a lack of proven structure and continuity, and acquitted of the carpet importation and production conspiracies.

Luangphasi was acquitted of possessing proceeds of crime.

The applicant, previously acquitted by a jury in Bermuda of conspiracy to import fentanyl, applied for a stay of proceedings on a Canadian charge of criminal negligence causing bodily harm arising from the same events.

The applicant argued that issue estoppel applied because the Bermudan jury must have decided issues in his favour that would preclude a conviction in Canada.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish the identity of issues requirement, as the Bermudan jury's verdict could have been based on factors unrelated to the elements of the Canadian charge.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the accused's post-offence travel to Bermuda as circumstantial evidence in a trial for exporting fentanyl.

The accused objected, arguing the evidence was more prejudicial than probative and invited moral prejudice based on religion and economic status.

The court found the travel records relevant as part of a matrix of circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the offence.

The court dismissed the accused's arguments regarding prejudice, concluding that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any minimal prejudicial effect, and ruled the evidence admissible.

The applicants, charged with drug trafficking, brought an application alleging a violation of their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was over 26 months.

The court found that late disclosure of police radio communications caused significant delay that was not attributable to the defence.

After deducting delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the net delay remained above the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The court granted the application and ordered a stay of proceedings.

Subsequently, the court summarily dismissed the Crown's application for forfeiture of seized funds, finding no reasonable prospect of success and that it would be unjust to permit forfeiture following a judicial stay.

The Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness of a statement made by the accused to RCMP officers while he was in custody in Bermuda awaiting trial for importing fentanyl.

The accused argued the statement was involuntary due to oppressive conditions, inducements, and police trickery.

The court applied the Oickle framework and found that the RCMP officers made no threats or promises, the conditions were not oppressive, and the accused maintained an operating mind throughout the interview.

The statement was ruled voluntary.

The applicant, charged with possession of proceeds of crime and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought an application to stay the proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay was approximately 44 months.

The court found that the period during which the applicant was out of the country and the subsequent extradition process constituted a discrete event.

Deducting this period brought the net delay well below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown sought judicial directions regarding execution of a search warrant for a seized cell phone where communications between the accused and his lawyer might be present.

Evidence indicated frequent contact between the accused’s phone and the lawyer’s phone number, raising a realistic risk that solicitor-client privileged communications could be contained on the device.

Applying the principles from Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada (Attorney General), the court held that precautions must be taken to avoid inadvertent disclosure of privileged material to the state.

The court ordered that the phone’s contents be copied by an independent expert and first provided to defence counsel to determine whether privilege would be asserted.

If privilege were claimed, the material would remain sealed with the court pending judicial determination.

The applicant, sought by the United States for his alleged role in a massive tax fraud scheme, applied for bail pending his extradition hearing.

The Crown opposed release on the primary ground, arguing the applicant posed a significant flight risk.

The court found that the applicant had access to unrecovered funds, ties outside of Canada, and a history of using false addresses to conceal his whereabouts.

Furthermore, the proposed sureties were deemed inadequate to supervise the applicant or ensure his attendance in court.

The application for bail was denied.

The accused, owner of a hydroponics and garden supply store, was charged with conspiracy to produce and possess marihuana for the purpose of trafficking, aiding and abetting those offences, and money laundering.

The Crown alleged the accused operated his store as a 'one-stop shop' to supply marihuana grow operations, using clandestine business practices to protect customers' identities.

The court found the accused guilty of the conspiracy and aiding and abetting charges, concluding he knew and intended that his products and services would facilitate marihuana grow operations.

However, the accused was acquitted of money laundering, as the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the funds used to purchase 'ghost ownership' properties were derived specifically from the production of marihuana rather than unreported store profits.